A New Hampshire prison inmate’s file drove a federal judge to rhyme. U.S. District Court Judge James Muirhead reached for Dr. Seuss’ “Green Eggs and Ham” for inspiration when a prison inmate protesting his diet attached a hard-boiled egg to documents sent to court.
“I do not like eggs in the file. I do not like them in any style. I will not take them fried or boiled. I will not take them poached or broiled. I will not take them soft or scrambled Despite an argument well-rambled,” Muirhead wrote in his response to inmate Charles Jay Wolff.
He then ordered the egg destroyed: “No fan I am Of the egg at hand. Destroy that egg! Today! Today! Today I say! Without delay!”
Muirhead’s food ruling is good, but NewMexiKen’s favorite food ruling is from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit:
Mr. Jeffrey Collier is a prisoner in the El Dorado Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas. One day at lunch, he did not receive the full portion of meat to which he believed he was entitled (one hot dog rather than two). Feeling wronged, he threw a temper tantrum by kicking and screaming, which put him into a pickle with the prison authorities. Whining over his wiener failed to secure Mr. Collier a second hot dog, but it did get him ten days in disciplinary segregation and a ten-dollar fine. Red hot, Mr. Collier filed a civil rights complaint in the district court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Mr. Collier’s complaint stated three claims. The district court quickly dismissed two of the claims – alleged violations of his constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and double jeopardy. Sandwiched between these two meritless claims, however, was a claim for denial of procedural due process, which the district court did not dismiss outright. Suspecting Mr. Collier could not go forward with his procedural due process claim because of Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), the district court afforded him an opportunity to show why the claim should not be dismissed. Mr. Collier was unable to make such a showing, and the district court dismissed the claim for being premature.
Mr. Collier appeals the district court’s decisions to this court. While this court does not relish the idea of prisoners going hungry, Mr. Collier’s first and third claims do not have any legal merit for the reasons provided by the district court in its two orders: the withholding of one hot dog is not “sufficiently serious” to rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation, see Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994); and the denial of one hot dog is not punishment for Double Jeopardy purposes.
…
By my count, there are five hot dog word associations — some of the cleverest legal writing since Justice Frankfurter was on the Supreme Court.